We're weirdly fascinated by this thing: How "people are made from different bits" is not exactly big news in many nicer singlet-focused ideas of how the mind works, and how our own and others' plurality relates to that.
We're not trying to find any Big Answers here, but collecting pieces. The one big opinion that I'll give is this: It's important to keep in mind that everyone and everymany get to decide on what stuff means to them. What is a plural experience for some is proof of their own singlethood to others. Something that sounds very similar when described can take on vastly different functions in different contexts.
A lot of this is about the Internal Family Systems approach to stuff, which is kinda popular right now. Bear in mind that IFS isn't always exactly the same thing as IFS either: For example, some authors describe parts as more separate/lively/graspable than others.
I think that MJ Barker's Plural Selves FAQ does an excellent job of explaining how there's always good reasons for saying you're plural or you're not plural, but no clear places to draw a line and separate one from the other.
In still thinking, still learning, still trying to understand, quiet misdreavus tells the story of how she discovered her plurality through Internal Family Systems therapy.
In Ordinary Parts, Owl describes the difference between parts when e was plural, and parts now that e isn't.
On our About Page, Libelle shared some thoughts about how IFS as we know it from Dick Schwartz's "No Bad Parts" applies to us.
In ‘No Bad Parts’: Some Plural Thoughts on The New Internal Family Systems Book, MJ Barker explores the plural-ish and the singlet-centered aspects of IFS in this book.